The ripples created by the use of the word “cockroach” by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Surya Kant, and by the observation he made along with it, are not ceasing. Although he explained that the observation that unemployed youth are turning to activism against the system was not intended as a criticism of the youth, he did not say that he had abandoned his position that opposing the system is wrong. While the “Cockroach Party”, which gained massive popularity, was a response from the youth, the public has now started demanding a correction from him on another issue — various organisations and groups are demanding that he retract his negative portrayal of environmental activism. The Chief Justice had also criticised environmental activism while hearing a petition challenging the approval granted to the Pipavav port project in Gujarat. An open letter signed by 72 prominent lawyers and environmental activists urged the Chief Justice to withdraw the verbal observation made in the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the court’s observation, although verbal, was enough to discourage even lawful environmental activism. Instead of viewing environmental litigation as a constitutional right, it is being seen as a nuisance that hinders development. It criminalises public oversight of development projects and places the interests of those in power beyond legal scrutiny.
Therefore, the Chief Justice’s correction is necessary to restore the legitimacy of “environmental jurisprudence”. Public interest litigation concerning the environment and appeals before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) are legitimate democratic processes, the open letter pointed out. In fact, it is the court’s ignorance and indifference towards environmental issues that are becoming anti-people. The court’s observation has strengthened the campaign that speaking up for the environment, which is the common property of all, is an obstacle to development. The court’s generalisation that there is not a single project in the country that has been welcomed by environmentalists is both unrealistic and worrying, according to the letter signed by 49 organisations and groups and 553 environmental activists. They too have demanded that the Chief Justice withdraw the observations. The court’s observation, which questions the integrity of environmental activists and views environmental work as “project obstruction”, casts doubt on the environmental litigation permitted by the Constitution. The question is not “development or environment”; rather, it is whether development is environmentally sustainable and lawful. The “Constitutional Contact Group”, a collective of former civil servants, has also issued a statement expressing concern over the Chief Justice’s observation.
It is not only wrong for the judiciary, which is expected to assess cases according to the law without prejudice, to view environmental protection interventions as a nuisance, but such an approach is also likely to render everyone — including the NGT, the High Courts, review mechanisms, and others — inactive in this regard. Scientists have warned that the environmental destruction caused by many of the projects in which the court has refused to intervene is far from insignificant. The paradox is that the government’s stance of pursuing development at the expense of the environment is being endorsed by the NGT and the Supreme Court at a time when the country and the world are facing an unprecedented climate crisis. The upcoming “Super El Niño” has been warned to cause massive crop damage in many regions, especially in India. It has also been reported that last month, considered the hottest globally, saw 50 cities in India experiencing unusually high temperatures. Yet, plans are being implemented in the Nicobar and various states to destroy rare forest ecosystems, including millions of trees. Environmental laws and even the definition of “forest” are being altered so as not to obstruct corporate projects. Even green tribunals are permitting deforestation. This is a critical juncture at which, at least, the courts ought to adopt a sensible stance. Not only are they failing to do so, but even questioning projects that destroy the environment is being portrayed as a nuisance. The Indian administration, which once accepted the protests of environmentalists against the Silent Valley project, protected the region, and earned global praise, has today changed dramatically.